Science and Religion: Barbour’s 4 models

In my last post , I linked to an article by Michael Fuller in which he provided an introduction to science and theology and Ian Barbour’s 4 models for the interaction between science and religion. In this post, I’d like to provide my own introduction to Ian Barbour and his 4 models.

Ian Barbour is professor emeritus at Carleton College where he was a longtime professor in physics and religion, and a wonderful role model for me (and others) as we delve into the field of science and religion. He is credited with bringing a greater appreciation to science and religion and providing a framework for modeling the interaction between the two seemingly disparate fields. While he is not the only one that paved the way, he was certainly an important and essential figure in the history of science and religion. His first book, Issues in Science and Religion (1966) was considered to be groundbreaking and he has written several other equally outstanding books. Not surprisingly, it took all of 5 seconds for me to decide to use one of them in the upcoming spring semester for my first Science and Religion course .

In the book I’ll be using, Barbour introduces the reader to his 4 models for the interaction of science and religion. He then applies each of the models to various fields that science and religion each claim knowledge in. The fields of interest include: astronomy and creation; the implication of quantum physics; evolution and continuing creation; genetics, neuroscience, and human nature; God and nature. The beauty of the book is that Barbour takes the reader through the interaction that would occur between scientists and theologians in these areas based upon each of the 4 models.

Alright, so what are his 4 models for the interaction of science and religion? The first model is the one that is most commonly observed in the media: conflict. The conflict model posits science vs religion and claims that, a priori, either science OR religion is true and the other is necessarily false. In the area of evolution and creation, this model is employed by both of the loudest “sides” as the Creationists say that the science must be false because it doesn’t jive with their reading of the Bible and the Evolutionists say that the Bible must be false because the science of evolution is true. You all know how I feel about this model, but let’s just say that like most, there’s been quite a lot of collateral damage in this war.

The second model is the independence model, which states that science and religion can both be true as long as they are kept to their separate domains. Both science and religion can be true at the same time as long as they respect their limits and stay true to their area. Science tells us how and religion tells us why and any other use of either is inappropriate. Again in the area of evolution and creation, this model is fairly common in the media and is a favorite of those “accommodationists” that are Christian and also accept the science behind evolution. God is the Creator and is the ‘why’ behind nature and evolution is the ‘how’. While this model is attractive I believe that it will unfortunately ultimately fail as science continues to cross boundaries and force its way into the ‘why’ area normally ruled by religion. Christians can choose to resist this, but I don’t think that’s the best response, especially in light of the precedent sent by Creationists who have resisted evolution.

The third model that Barbour posits for the interaction of science and religion is the dialogue model. In this model, science and religion are conversation partners in the areas mentioned above and to which they both claim knowledge. This model is not as common in the media although it is the one that most academics interested in pushing forward the scholarly field of science and religion are fond of. While this model “sounds” really great it is not an easy one to put into practice because it at minimum requires mutual respect between scientists and theologians and at maximum requires academic training for conversation participants in science and religion and there are very few that are adequately versed in both. Nevertheless, I (and others) feel it to be better model than those of conflict and independence because it gives respect to both science and religion and sees “true” truth as holistic and encompassing both views and disciplinary styles. Again though, easier said than done. Conversation can be great and fruitful but it can also be difficult and a waste of time if both parties aren’t willing to actually engage each other and find a common or middle ground. In the discussion of evolution and creation, the dialogue model leads to a synthesis or theology of nature that has received a fair amount of attention by scientist-theologians.

The fourth and final model is the integration model. This model takes dialogue and conversation much further and posits that the truth of science and religion can be integrated into a more complete or full “whole”. We science and religion academics like this model too but it also suffers from sounding good but being immensely difficult to put into practice. This model was exemplified in the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who sought to integrate evolution, Christianity (some parts of it, at least), redemption, and perfection, and saw all of this fulfilled in his vision of the “Omega Point”. His level of integration was extreme and eye-opening, and as such others who profess this model are likely to limit themselves a bit more. I like this model as well but worry about it because the truth claims of science and religion are not necessarily absolute and thus wedding them to each other may end in a bitter divorce. Nevertheless, integration in some manner is a worthy endeavor.

So we have 4 models for the interaction of science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Which model do you prefer? Have you ever even thought about it in this way? Do you think identifying and discussing these models is a fruitful way of pursuing issues in science and religion?

UPDATE:
For those that are interested in more about Barbour’s 4 model typology, I have expanded on this post in a recent series by using his models to discuss evolution and creation. See here: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration.

It is important to know this point, which most rationalists have distorted. The point is knowledge deals with the tangible world, meaning that our perception and understanding of the surrounding comes because of dealing with the tangible world. Man, through his 5 senses, perceives the world around him providing raw data for his mind so that through the process of thinking it could come up with the results. These results and fruits of the mind are called man’s knowledge, in other words. If nothing is perceived through man’s senses, then no knowledge would be created consequently. For example, you have no idea about me- the one who is writing this article- and have no image in your mind regarding my expression, right? Because you haven’t seen me or heard about me; so, you can’t express any idea about me.

Ok, now the subject of religion and what we need to believe in falls in the category of things which are intangible or abstract, and it has nothing to do with man’s knowledge and are never the subject of knowledge and empirical testing. They are called the pillars of faith which are 6 i.e. believing in God, His angels, His books or revelation, His prophets, hell and paradise (afterlife) and, destiny (both its good and bad). These pillars never could be verified or falsified and the only method to approach them and believe in them is authentic revelation which is based on miracle. This is entirely consistent and compatible with the nature of the 6 pillars, i.e. miracle has nothing to do with knowledge and it occurs out of the scope of man’s knowledge and the rules of the physical world; and by observing it, man knows it is a fact and revealing truth and has no choice but to accept it.

Ok now, all prophets came with a miracle which indicates that they are sent by God and after proving their prophecy, they deliver their message to the people, which is believing in the 6 pillars of faith. All prophets before Muhammad (pbuh) had miracles that were transient, as their religions, so by their death their miracle also ended as it used to be shown by their hands. However, Muhammad (pbuh), the prophet of Islam, had two kinds of miracles: one stopped by his death and another remained forever in his book Quran as did so his religion.

Quran talked about very scientific issues 1400 years ago, which we just discovered through the most developed science and technology of this era. Just as an example, some miracle happens and you can search about them in Google and find the truth nakedly. For instance, we can search about the expansion of the universe, there is no oxygen at high level of the sky, the exact stages of embryo development in mother womb (which a great scholar named Keith Moore proves), the big bang theory, the ozone layer, and many other which are miraculously explained in the Quran way before we learned about them. This shows it is a revealed book and many great scholars accepted this and became Muslim.

Maybe some claim such kinds of knowledge existed long before Quran. First, if a nation had knowledge about 100 issues, 5 or 10 come true but the rest are false, whereas Quran is 100 percent true and carries no false scientific or psychological idea. Secondly, many ideas were just hypothesis rather than facts which were proven wrong later through empirical testing which wasn’t the case for the Quranic ideas. Thirdly, there are many scientific ideas in the Quran which have just recently been discovered and no one has talked about it before, such as there is no oxygen in the higher levels of the sky, or exact stages of embryo and many others. And only after the invention of how to fly did man know that there is no oxygen at the higher levels of the sky or through latest technology did they find out about the embryo’s exact stages. So, through scientific miracles we could know that the Quran is a revealed book and we should believe in its messages.

Creationists for the most do not say that the science must be false but how it is being interpreted is false, when applied to a historical context. The problem is that the historical context is being applied from an essentially atheistic perspective. As a result, many of the assumptions being made are atheistic and as such are logically false if the Bible is true. The point is Creationists simply look at the data from a different perspective.